DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 5 March 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 73, 75, 82-83, 85, and 92 have been amended.
Claims 1-72, 77-80, 84 have been cancelled.
Claims 96-97 are new.
Claims 73-76, 81-83, and 85-97 are pending.
It is noted that while claim 89 is described as being amended, no amendments are shown.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 73-76, 80-83, 85-86, 88-90, 93, and 95 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Pillow et al. (GB 2515491) (hereafter “Pillow”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 91 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Pillow et al. (GB 2515491) (hereafter “Pillow”), and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 92 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Pillow et al. (GB 2515491) (hereafter “Pillow”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pillow does not describe that the compounds of the disclosure of Pillow can be more than bidentate—such as tetradentate as in the ligands of Lee—or that a structure equivalent to the instant K can be O or S. Applicant argues that due to Pillow’s silence with respect to tetradentate ligands that the benefits taught by Pillow would only have been realized in a bidentate ligand. Applicant argues that due to Pillow’s silence with respect to tetradentate ligands the effects of the linking group of Pillow would have been unpredictable in a tetradentate ligand structure and that therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Pillow with Lee.
As outlined below, Pillow teaches that the N atom of the -B-N- bridge causes a shallowing of the LUMO of the ligands of Pillow, resulting in a widening of the HOMO-LUMO bandgap of the metal complex {p. 12, 2nd paragraph}. The bridge of Pillow would be connected to the same rings whether they were part of the bidentate or tetradentate ligand. The bridge would therefore be interacting with a similar electronic structure whether it was applied to a bidentate ligand or a tetradentate ligand. For this reason, a shallowed LUMO and a widened HOMO-LUMO bandgap would have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Pillow contains no express limit on the denticity of the ligands of the disclosure of Pillow.
Absent additional evidence and/or technical reasoning, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the instant K as O or S is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 87: Claim 87 recites that “L1 is O or CR’R”. However, Claim 73, from which claim 87 depends, does not allow for “L1 to be O or CR’R”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite, because it cannot be determined what L1 is permitted to be. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that L1 can be any of the options of the current claim 72.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 87: Claim 87 recites that “L1 is O or CR’R”. However, Claim 73, from which claim 87 depends, does not allow for “L1 to be O or CR’R”. Therefore, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 73-76, 80-83, 85-90, 93, and 95-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Pillow et al. (GB 2515491) (hereafter “Pillow”)
Regarding claims 73-76, 80-83, 85-90, 93, and 95-96: Lee discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0511]-[0514] and Table 2: Example 1}.
The organic layer comprising a light-emitting layer comprising the compound shown below as a light-emitting dopant {paragraphs [0511]-[0514] and Table 2: Example 1}.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The light-emitting layer additionally comprises a host material that is CBP {paragraphs [0511]-[0514] and Table 2: Example 1}.
Lee does not teach that the benzimidazole ring and the benzene ring of the phenyl-benzimidazole ligand of the compound of Lee shown above are linked by a chemical group in addition to the single bond.
Pillow teaches iridium metal complexes for use as light emitting materials in the light emitting layer of organic light emitting devices {(p. 3, final line through p. 5, 3rd paragraph), (pp. 37-38: Device Example 1)}.
Pillow exemplifies the compound shown below {(p. 11, final paragraph and p. 12, the compound shown below), (p. 37, Example Compound 3)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
118
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where in the compound shown above, the ligands are phenyl-imidazole ligands comprising a -B-N- bridge between the phenyl ring and the imidazole ring in addition to these rings being linked by a single bond. Pillow teaches that the ligand could alternatively be a ligand comprising benzimidazole {p 8, 5th structure}. Additionally, Pillow teaches that the metal can be Pt {p. 7, lines 4-6}.
Pillow teaches that the N atom of the -B-N- bridge causes a shallowing of the LUMO, resulting in a widening of the HOMO-LUMO bandgap of the metal complex {p. 12, 2nd paragraph}.
The -B-N- bridge would connect the phenyl ring and benzimidazole ring in the same way in the compound of Yi as it would in the compounds of Pillow and would thus impart the LUMO shallowing property taught by Pillow.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Lee such that the methyl substituent of the phenyl-benzimidazole containing ligand of Lee is replaced with a -B-N- bridge of Pillow exemplified above that links the phenyl ring and the benzimidazole ring in addition to the single bond between the rings, based on the teaching of Pillow. The motivation for doing so would have been to shallow the LUMO energy level, resulting in a widening of the HOMO-LUMO bandgap of the metal complex, as taught by Pillow.
Regarding claim 97: Lee as modified by Pillow teaches all of the features with respect to claim 73, as outlined above.
Lee does not exemplify a compound similar to that of the cited compound of Lee except for where the instant K is S instead of O.
However, Lee teaches that K can optionally be S instead of O {paragraphs [0012], [0057]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Lee by substituting S in place of O at the position equivalent to the instant K, based on the teaching of Lee. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of S would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the two described options for Lee at the position equivalent to the instant K), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Pillow et al. (GB 2515491) (hereafter “Pillow”) as applied to claim 90 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claims 91: Lee as modified by Pillow teaches all of the features with respect to claim 90, as outlined above.
Lee as modified by Pillow does not teach that the host comprises a triphenylene containing benzo-fused thiophene.
Ma teaches a host material for an OLED device that has the structure shown below {(p. 1, ¶ [0014]; The triphenylene-containing benzofused thiophenes are useful as host compounds in organic light emitting devices.), (p. 2, paragraph [0015]; The triphenylene-containing benzofused thiophenes include compounds having the structure of Formula (III).), (p. 9, ¶ [0045]; Compounds having the structure of Formula III are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 9-11.), (p. 9, Compound 2’)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Ma’s Compound 2’)]
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ma sought to provide host compounds with improved film forming properties that when used in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with improved device stability and efficiency {p. 4, paragraphs [0033] and [0037]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic EL device of Yi by using Ma’s Compound 2’ as the host material of the emission layer, based on the teachings of Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host compound with improved film forming properties that when used in an OLED provided a device with improved device stability, efficiency, and driving voltage as taught by Ma.
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Pillow et al. (GB 2515491) (hereafter “Pillow”) as applied to claim 89 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 92: Lee as modified by Pillow teaches all of the features with respect to claim 89, as outlined above.
Claim 92 differs from claim 89 in that the organic light-emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Lee as modified by Pillow does not teach a consumer product comprising the organic light-emitting device of Lee as modified by Pillow described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Lee as modified by Pillow to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 94 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Pillow et al. (GB 2515491) (hereafter “Pillow”) is a representation of the closest prior art. While Pillow teaches a group consistent with the instant L1, the boron and nitrogen bridging unit taught by Pillow does not meet the limitations of the current claim 94. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or motivate modifying the teachings of either Lee or Lee in combination with Pillow for the compounds of Lee or Lee as modified by Pillow to have the structure necessary to meet the limitations of the current claim 94.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights